Pharmacist Denies Anti-Bleeding Medication Because Woman Might Have Had an Abortion

[AllieBaba]

Yes, have you?

Of course the pharmacist responded; there's been a complaint filed. That's what happens. It doesn't prove that anything happened. When somebody alleges things against a professional and files a complaint, they have to respond. IT'S NOT PROOF THAT IT HAPPENED, you idiot. No more than somebody entering a plea of not guilty is proof that they are guilty of what they are being arraigned for.

 

[geauxtohell]

I don't see as where it was life threatening.

Get used to health care professionals opting out of lots of things government demands they do, as a course of conscience.

Okay, class. Let's review some causes of shock:

1.) Septic.
2.) Neurogenic.
3.) Hypovolemic.

Let's focus on#3, caused (as you can infer from the name) from blood loss. Hypervolemic shock is a medical emergency that can occur secondary to massive hemorrhage or chronic blood loss. In obstetrics, menhorragia is considered a serious condition and can cause death if not adequately managed. Fortunately, it often can be managed with hormones or other pills. If the condition is serious, it might require endometrial ablation or a hysterectomy.

Furthermore, being in a constant state of anemia isn't good for the body either as every cell in your body needs oxygen for metabolism and blood carries oxygen.

That concludes your lesson for the day.

You're welcome.

Revere, I assume you don't have a uterus. But that doesn't mean you have to act like you have an ass instead of a head.

 

[geauxtohell]

When a doctor botches your mom's assisted suicide, and has to get more meds from the pharmacist to finish mom off, maybe you'll be lucky enough to have a pharmacist that says "shove it up your ass, doc."

There is no state in this nation that allows a Doctor to directly assist in a suicide. The closest thing would be Oregon's Death with Dignity act, and Doctors merely write the script. The patient takes the medication on their own.

Now, if you were talking about lethal injection, you might have a point.

You really are a dim bulb aren't you?

 

[geauxtohell]

What happened?

PP alleged that an unnamed pharmacist refused to fill a scrip to an unnamed person, via an unnamed nurse practioner?

Beautiful. Those are some mighty heavy duty facts.

The patient can't be named because of HIPAA.

The other people might not be named due to pending legal action.

 

[AllieBaba]

Pharmacists should refuse to fill scripts they know are going to be used for somebody to off themselves.

It's against the hypocratic oath.

And if somebody is bleeding so much they are at risk of death, they shouldn't be released from the clinic in the first place.

 

[AllieBaba]

What happened?

PP alleged that an unnamed pharmacist refused to fill a scrip to an unnamed person, via an unnamed nurse practioner?

Beautiful. Those are some mighty heavy duty facts.

The patient can't be named because of HIPAA.

The other people might not be named due to pending legal action.

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

 

[geauxtohell]

Pharmacists should refuse to fill scripts they know are going to be used for somebody to off themselves.

In our wonderful free market world, this will lead to a bunch of pissed off Doctors who aren't going to tolerate pharmacists trying to play doctor, which will lead to Doctors not sending scripts to said pharmacists, which will lead to an economic boon for phramacists that are willing to do their jobs.

It's against the hypocratic oath.

So are cholecystectomies.

The Hippocratic Oath is nice feel-good langauge for White Coat Ceremonies. People aren't required to swear to it and it has absolutely no legal power.

And if somebody is bleeding so much they are at risk of death, they shouldn't be released from the clinic in the first place.

It doesn't take a massive, acute hemorrhage to drop below the magic 7.0 Hgb value. If you are going to try and argue that this bleed wasn't enough of a bleed to be treated medically, you are going to look silly.

 

[geauxtohell]

What happened?

PP alleged that an unnamed pharmacist refused to fill a scrip to an unnamed person, via an unnamed nurse practioner?

Beautiful. Those are some mighty heavy duty facts.

The patient can't be named because of HIPAA.

The other people might not be named due to pending legal action.

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

 

[AllieBaba]

Lol.

 

[bodecea]

The patient can't be named because of HIPAA.

The other people might not be named due to pending legal action.

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

However, did Allie want this message board to function like a court of law when it came to the legality of the NYC Muslim Center or the culpability of NYC muslims with 9/11?

 

[geauxtohell]

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

However, did Allie want this message board to function like a court of law when it came to the legality of the NYC Muslim Center or the culpability of NYC muslims with 9/11?

Yes. The "both sides" argument seems to only get play when people try to defend the indefensible.

 

[DiveCon]

The patient can't be named because of HIPAA.

The other people might not be named due to pending legal action.

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

you must not watch Mythbusters

 

[AllieBaba]

Good grief.

All the same loons (and a few more) sans Ravi who spent weeks insisting the state was justified in taking dozens of children into custody based on the claims of a mentally ill woman who had previously made similar claims against other people used the EXACT SAME REASONING during the FLDS debacle.

How did that turn out for you retards? One lunatic complaint is NOT proof positive that something actually happened. Just as you did back then, you're reading all sorts of idiotic things into one person's claims.

Maybe it will turn out to be something. I doubt it, but it could.

But the fact is, you don't know what the hell happened, and you aren't going to for a while.

My guess is this will go quietly away, and you idiots will pretend it never happened.

 

[DiveCon]

Mythbusters lead balloon (flv video) free file download at fliiby.com

 

[geauxtohell]

Lol.

I agree, your comments on this thread are fairly comical.

Were you going to address anything I said, or are you just going to duck and cover?

If it's the latter, let me put an exclamation point on my last post to you:

As someone who is a year away from being a physician, I could give two shits about what you or anyone else considers as "moral" when it comes to treating patients. I'll act in accordance with the law and medical ethics as they are accepted by the medical community.

I also will see to it that my patients will not have their and my time wasted by going to a pharmacist who refuses to fill a script under some asinine "conscious clause". On the plus side, this could be a boon for small family pharmacies who will have staff well known to the medical community.

If you or some goofy crusading pharmacist wants to get involved on the treatment side of the house so they can editorialize or practice in a way they see as moral, then you are more then welcome to go to Medical School and suffer like the rest of us poor schlubs.

 

[geauxtohell]

So? The truth is, you have only one source, and one-source information is questionable at best.

It's idiotic to determine guilt based on the allegation or complaint only. There's a process to determine the validity, and you idiots are completely bypassing that and pretending the complaint itself is factual, since there's nobody else talking at this time.

Morons.

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

you must not watch Mythbusters

Not as much as I'd like too.

 

[DiveCon]

Oh. So now we have decided that this message board is going to function like a court of law and we have to wait for all the facts to come in before we start commenting?

That should go over like a lead fucking balloon.

you must not watch Mythbusters

Not as much as I'd like too.

i posted a link to the video
they actually made a lead balloon and floated it

 

[MikeK]

The pharmacist's license should be revoked. Walgreen's should be fined for allowing this.

As referenced in the opening message, the "conscience clause" in that state's law protects the pharmacist. The most effective way to deal with this situation is a boycott of Walgreen's but it's likely that a significant percentage of Idaho's population are Bible-bangers who approve of the pharmacist's action.

 

[geauxtohell]

The pharmacist's license should be revoked. Walgreen's should be fined for allowing this.

As referenced in the opening message, the "conscience clause" in that state's law protects the pharmacist. The most effective way to deal with this situation is a boycott of Walgreen's but it's likely that a significant percentage of Idaho's population are Bible-bangers who approve of the pharmacist's action.

It appears that the law won't protect the pharmacist in this case.

The entity that has the biggest problem right now is Wall Greens. Physicians don't like it when someone else decides to screw with their plan of care.

Our hospital is now set up to automatically send scripts to pharmacies. We just punch in the name, and off they go. If physicians start to get the notion that Wall Greens is going to tolerate pharmacists screwing up their patient care, the scripts will go else where.

In the true spirit of conservatism "big business should have the final say", I can see pharmacies starting to screen phramacists over whether they have moral objections to filling scripts and simply not hiring those that do.

Problem solved.

Either way, this is a silly law that complicates patient care and is going to run into a wall eventually.

 

[DiveCon]

The pharmacist's license should be revoked. Walgreen's should be fined for allowing this.

As referenced in the opening message, the "conscience clause" in that state's law protects the pharmacist. The most effective way to deal with this situation is a boycott of Walgreen's but it's likely that a significant percentage of Idaho's population are Bible-bangers who approve of the pharmacist's action.

It appears that the law won't protect the pharmacist in this case.

The entity that has the biggest problem right now is Wall Greens. Physicians don't like it when someone else decides to screw with their plan of care.

Our hospital is now set up to automatically send scripts to pharmacies. We just punch in the name, and off they go. If physicians start to get the notion that Wall Greens is going to tolerate pharmacists screwing up their patient care, the scripts will go else where.

In the true spirit of conservatism "big business should have the final say", I can see pharmacies starting to screen phramacists over whether they have moral objections to filling scripts and simply not hiring those that do.

Problem solved.

Either way, this is a silly law that complicates patient care and is going to run into a wall eventually.

i cant see not hiring them, but have them never be the only pharmacist on duty